Dan Kaplan, SC Magazine:
In my eyes, this seems to be another step by U.S. officials, without exactly coming out and saying it, to label Anonymous as a cyber terrorist organization, bent on indiscriminate destruction of digital property and infrastructure.
The DHS in the “National Cybersecurity and Communications Integrations Center Bulletin”, A-0020-NCCIC / ICS-CERT –120020110916:
“The loosely organized hacking collective known as Anonymous has recently expressed an interest in targeting industrial control systems (ICS). (…) Anonymous’ increased interest may indicate intent to develop an offensive ICS capability in the future.”
Kaplan continues, on Duqu, the alleged Stuxnet offspring:
Which reminds me: I’m waiting for DHS to publish a warning based on a potential real critical infrastructure issue that popped up just yesterday — evidence that the Stuxnet authors are back with new malware. I’m sure the bulletin will arrive any minute now.
Even a year after, Langner sticks to his assessment:
Thinking about it for another minute, if it’s not aliens, it’s got to be the United States.
A little gem for friends of games and strategies. The author:
I…intend to…provide a fresh perspective, hopefully thought provoking, on a key aspect of the movement: the claim of “leaderless resistance”.
My intent, in this note, is to raise context and observations on the nature of “leaderless resistance” as a strategic outlook, and as a tactic. (…)
My intent is a strategic and tactical observation of the “leaderless resistance” concept as applied to “Occupy Wall Street”,
Strategies applied by the police against this “leaderless resistance”?
De-Anonymization:
Like sifting sands for gold, the identification of the logistical leadership is priceless to future intervention. Those targeted should be very vigilant: they are no longer Anonymous.
Counter-intelligence, network analysis:
However, the process of booking is an intelligence coup. Not only are the databases updated, but new items added, biometric data collected, network analysis made. In effect, 700 arrests mean, 70,000 data routes for the average person, who knows 100 people or so. There is overlap, so obviously the number made vulnerable is not 70,000, but it will still be in the five figures. This is a counter-intelligence coup. Yes, we are Anonymous, we never forgive, we never forget. Neither does the State – and its power is underestimated.
Wedging:
The elimination of formal hierarchy doesn’t eliminate informal hierarchy of will, charisma, economic/racial/gender privilege and other such background hierarchies. In effect, counter-intelligence hoists the movement on its own petard in a pragmatic approach.
Criminalisation:
By criminalizing the movement, in other words, by equating active participation with the possibility of being processed criminally, the same “preventative” logic of policing is imposed on political speech. … Leaderless resistance in this sense doesn’t figure at all: no matter what strategic and tactical method is uses, this response will happen.
(via p2pFoundation)
Anonymous utilises meritocracy, Max Halupka and Cassandra Star, argue. An excerpt from the Abstract:
Anonymous employs aspects of meritocracy in formulating collective decisions. With all members utilising the same user-name, individualism is nonexistent. As such, the merit of an argument is based solely on its content as opposed to a pre-constructed perception of the individual and their perceived history or standing in the group. Furthermore, an individual’s mastery of the group’s culture denotes their involvement within the community and the level of their understanding in relation to its founding ideology.
That’s gibberish. Meritocracy inherently requires the ability to identify a person or at least an online persona. Meritocracy is about achieving reputation over time by certain actions of the reputable individual and the expectations and interests of the distinguishing group and the transfer of authority to the reputable person by the group. But if all individuals run around in Guy Fawkes masks and call themselves Anonymous, how do you tell the reputable person apart from the schmucks? Well, they have their leaders du jour who lead ad hoc and thereby rise through the structureless and leaderless ranks and achieve authority.
Anonymous though should not be considered a true example of a meritocracy. We argue that Anonymous utilises elements of meritocracy within its democratic decision making process, specifically the concept of merit4. These elements are drawn upon to construct an ad hoc hierarchy, filter community communications and dictate an individual’s level of involvement in the creation of multimedia pertaining to a specific cause. …
Comments which are seemingly better informed have the potential, in this instance, to influence the opinions and direction of the community as a whole as opposed to those which denote a presence of ignorance or unrealistic expectations.
Is a system that allows for taking the lead ad-hoc based on superior skills a meritocracy? There are similarities, but I doubt it’s a meritocratic system.